2011 Discharge to the Commission - Europa · 2017-01-23 · resource-efficient, circular and...

1

2015 Discharge to the Commission

WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO COMMISSIONERMOEDAS

on 24 January 2017

EU 2020 strategy, European Funds for Strategic Investments

1. How would you assess the contribution of the "research family" to the attainment ofthe main policy goals of the EU 2020 strategy?

Commission's answer:

The Europe 2020 strategy set out five headline targets for the European Union, to beachieved by 2020:

Employment - 75% of 20 to 64 year old men and women to be employed

The ex-post evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme estimated that theprogramme created about 130 000 research jobs over 10 years and 160 000 additionaljobs indirectly over 25 years.

It is too early to evaluate the results and impact of Horizon 2020, but it is fair toassume that it will have a similar effect.

Research and Innovation - 3% of the EU's GDP to be invested in R&D

The ex-post evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme estimated that theprogramme generated around 11 euros in indirect and direct economic effects forevery euro invested. The research family has also made many other efforts to improvethe level and quality of investment in research and innovation in Member States, andto improve the framework conditions that will allow innovation to flourish in theEuropean Union. Nevertheless, the level of GDP invested in research and innovationremains just over 2%. See question 21 for details of the challenges faced.

Climate change and energy sustainability - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%compared to 1990 levels, increase the share of renewables in final energyconsumption to 20 % and a 20% increase in energy efficiency:

The research family is only a small part of the Commission's contribution to theachievement of these targets. Nevertheless, spending on climate change andsustainability increased in FP7, and the decision to spend 35% of all Horizon 2020funds on climate-change related areas represented a clear commitment tocontributing to achieving these targets. The research family is fully integrated in theStrategic Energy Technology Plan as advances cannot be made without a goodresearch base.

Education – reducing the rates of early school leaving below 10%, and at least 40% of30-34 year olds completing third level education.

2

The research family is only a small part of the Commission's contribution to theachievement of these targets. Nevertheless, as well as its research into education, FP7supported the mobility of more than 50 000 researchers, thus supporting third leveleducation systems across the Union.

Fighting poverty and exclusion – at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk ofpoverty and social exclusion.

The research family is only a small part of the Commission's contribution to theachievement of these targets. Nevertheless, it supports research in these fields.Research into migration and mobility has been an increasing feature of Horizon 2020.

2. Please provide information on the steps that have been taken to improve the visibilityof the institution. ?


Research and Innovation policies are a highly visible success story for the EU whichmake a major contribution to the Priorities of the Juncker Commission, particularly inthe areas of growth and jobs, energy union and climate change, digital single marketand Europe as a global actor.

Research and Innovation policies are therefore prominent in the Commission'scommunication actions. . For example, Horizon 2020 is integrated in to corporatecommunication under the leitmotiv Invest EU – Growth Starts Here

For research in particular, external communication actions are oriented towardshighlighting the impact and relevance of EU funded research and innovation and theadded value of action in these area at the European level, consistent with the BudgetFocused on Results initiative.

Beneficiaries of grant support under Horizon 2020 have an obligation to communicatethe impact and relevance of their work to non-specialised audiences. In addition,communication channels for showcasing the successes and EU funded Research andInnovation include: the Research and Innovation and Horizon 2020 Europa websites;Horizon magazine; and our social media accounts. Commissioner Moedas is also activeon social media

Collaboration with Euronews on the production of the Futuris broadcasts (TV andweb) highlights attractive R&I stories aimed at a general public across Europe andbeyond.

3. Please name 3 of the institution’s main achievements and successes in 2015. How dothey impact in the institution’s challenges for the future? Please focus mainly onoperations, activities and results achieved.


In terms of the area under the responsibility of Commissioner Moedas, the AnnualActivity Report of DG RTD for 2015 sets out a range of activities and results achieved

3

for 2015, including successful projects, overall results from FP7 as well as policyactivities (see especially pages 5-9)

http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/rtd_aar_2015.pdf

Of course one main achievement has been bringing Horizon 2020 to cruising speed,with over 9 000 grant agreements signed for calls in 2014 and 2015, with a budget ofover €15.9 in EU funding. Please see question 1 for the effect that this will have inthe future. This is linked to the Growth and Jobs objective of the Commission. Thefollowing brochure provides a summary of the main achievements of Horizon 2020so far:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/h2020_2-years-on_brochure.pdf

Additionally, the Commission notes the substantial reduction of the time to grant,the increasing number of newcomers and SMEs participating in Horizon 2020.

4. As all energy efficiency investments under the EFSI Innovation and Infrastructurewindow (IIW) have been made in only 3 countries and all renewable investments inonly 2 countries, how will the Commission ensure that more countries are taking partwith projects in these areas under EFSI?


Taking the recent EFSI developments into account, the picture is more positive: about70 of the EFSI infrastructure projects are dealing with energy and energy efficiency, asignificant number of them is investing in renewable energy. These projects aredistributed across Europe and supported also by funds with a pan-European scope.One of the EFSI's most important features is that there are no quotas – regional orsectorial – and that project support is demand driven. Despite this, the Commissionagrees that EFSI's geographical and sectorial coverage can be further improved. Thereare several tools available to this end, including combining the use of the EFSI withother EU funds, notably the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds),setting up Investment Platforms (e.g. national, regional, cross-border) and moretargeted outreach from the European Investment Advisory Hub.

The European Investment Advisory Hub is expected to take a more proactiveapproach to develop a more diversified pipeline of investible projects, encouragingpromoters of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects across the EU to applyfor EFSI support. Also, the European Investment Project Portal can increase thevisibility of these projects. In addition, energy efficiency projects and energyinterconnection priority projects will be increasingly targeted in the future, ashighlighted in the Commission's September 2016 proposal for the extension of EFSI1.

5. After the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, how does Commission plan to makethe EFSI IIW portfolio climate proof, so as to ensure that a majority of projectsfinanced are in the area of climate action in line with the Paris commitment?

1 COM(2016) 597, 14.9.2016

4


See also question 4.

In the future, EFSI will focus even more on sustainable investments in all sectors tocontribute to meeting COP21 targets and to help deliver on the transition to aresource-efficient, circular and zero-carbon economy. Under the Commission'sSeptember 2016 proposal for the extension of EFSI, at least 40% of EFSI financingunder the IIW should support projects contributing to climate action in line withCOP21 objectives2. In addition, the Commission proposes that the EuropeanInvestment Advisory Hub further supports the preparation of climate-friendlyprojects, in particular in the context of COP21.

6. The European Commission took 2,2 billion out of Horizon 2020 to set up the EuropeanFund for Strategic Investment (EFSI). This has been justified by the claim thatuniversities and research institutes would also profit from EFSI. Can the Commissionerprovide a list of all Research and Innovation projects that have funded by EFSI thatinclude public knowledge and research institutes?


Research, development and innovation (RDI) is one of the priority sectors targeted byEFSI. By November 2016, out of the EFSI transactions so far approved by the EuropeanInvestment Bank (EIB), 25% are in the RDI sector, while two thirds of all projects havea strong RDI element3. As regards EFSI operations under the SME Window, the EIFequity investments and guarantees provided for RDI by SMEs and mid caps amount toEUR 5.5bn and represent 68% of the overall EIF financing under EFSI so far. These EIFoperations should mobilise more than EUR 25bn of investments in the EU economyfor the purposes of RDI.

In addition, when deciding which parts of Horizon 2020 would contribute to EFSI,priority was given to the protection of individual and bottom-up research schemes,such as the European Research Council, which deals with frontier research, and theMarie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which address the training and mobility ofresearchers.

All projects carried out under the infrastructure window of EFSI are performed byprivate companies, mainly from the industrial sector. However, over time, theinjection of funds into the economy via EFSI will upgrade the research capabilities offirms and universities, create incubators and technological centres, enable access torisk capital and loans, build cluster partnerships, activate innovation ecosystems,provide advanced services, and stimulate collaboration in European value chains inorder to deepen the internal market and strengthen the industrial base.

2 COM(2016) 597, 14.9.2016, Article 1 (5) (b)3 RDI Sector Factsheet: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/research-innovation-development-booklet-investment-plan-sectors_en.pdf

5

During 2017, Horizon 2020's InnovFin Advisory service, managed by EIB, will look intohow to help universities and public research organisations, and their spin-offs, betteraccess EFSI.

7. How will you clarify the links between Europe 2020, the new Commission prioritiesand Horizon 2020 now do not always facilitate a focus on performance and, therefore,need to be clarified?


The European Court of Auditors, in paragraph 3.27 of its Annual report for 2015,accepts that the performance framework for Horizon 2020 is a real advance over thatof FP7.

The Commission's strategic planning process has been revised in 2016. It is now builtaround the 10 political priorities of the Commission, and these are fully compatiblewith the Europe 2020 strategy. The headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy arelinked to the political priorities. Commission services will report on their achievementsagainst objectives set through their annual activity reports.

The Commission will also continue to report on progress towards the Europe 2020targets as part of the European Semester process and on the contribution of thebudget (including Horizon 2020) to Europe 2020 in the annual management andperformance report.

8. How could the synergy between EFSI and H2020 be further improved?


The Commission is continuously striving to improve synergies between EFSI andHorizon 2020. EFSI has recently earmarked EUR 270 million of support to the InnovFinEquity instruments of Horizon 2020. EFSI is also providing EUR 880 million to top upthe H2020 InnovFin SME Guarantee debt instrument.

Possibilities to ensure a coordinated deployment of Horizon 2020, EFSI and potentiallyother budgetary resources and target low-carbon energy technologies and potentiallyother sectors are at the planning stage.

Management and Control Systems

9. Among the most common errors in the implementation of FP7 projects were thoserelated to calculation of staff costs. What measures did DG Research and Innovationimplement in order for researches not to be paid differently for the same workdepending solely on their country of origin thus affecting predominantly scientistsfrom Central and Eastern Europe? This payment policy, which above all stimulates thebrain-drain in Europe, is applied with minor adjustments in the framework of theHorizon 2020 programme. Did you amend the Model Grant Agreement, and did youconsult with the member states in relation to this?

6


Horizon 2020 funding is based on the reimbursement of actual costs incurred by thebeneficiary organisations, there is no direct payment of salaries from the Commissionto the researchers. The salaries received by researchers are the result of decisionstaken by individual companies or public bodies. The setting of these salaries is not acompetence of the European Union.

However, the Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by some researchers in theUnion, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The salary gap of researchers fromdifferent Member States was one of the aspects of Horizon 2020 retaining majorattention at the time of the negotiation of the Rules for Participation (RfP). Extensivediscussions led to a final compromise reflected in Article 27 of the Horizon 2020 RfP,which defines the conditions and ceiling for acceptance of additional remuneration.

Over the first years of implementation of Horizon 2020 it has become evident that theapplication of the provisions on additional remuneration has created someunintended side-effects. Indeed, in some Member States the new provisions riskincreasing, rather than narrowing, the salary gap for researchers participating inHorizon 2020 actions. This is chiefly the result of national remuneration practices inthe public sector which strongly relay on project-based bonuses, to compensate forlow basic salaries.

Since the start of Horizon 2020 the Commission has been discussing with MemberStates possible actions to remedy this situation. Recently, the Commission hasinitiated the procedure to amend the Horizon 2020 model grant agreements so as tomodify the current implementation of the rules on additional remuneration. TheCommission´s proposal has been shared with Member States experts as well as theEuropean Parliament.

The Commission is confident that the approach proposed will overcome to a largeextent the unintended effects of the rules on additional remuneration. However, themargin of manoeuvre of the Commission in this regard is limited by article 27 of theHorizon 2020 RfP. If the forthcoming amendment of the model grant agreements isinsufficient,. Commissioner Moedas has indicated that he would be willing to proposechanges to the Rules

10. Many researchers complain that it is too complicated and burdensome for them toapply for EU grants, and they simply do not resort to EU funding at all. This is of coursenot the intention of the Commission. Is the balance between trust and control of thebeneficiaries appropriately stricken according to the Commission?


60 380 beneficiaries have applied for funding under 2014 and 2015 calls for proposals.This is a considerable increase over FP7, and shows the great interest in Horizon 2020in the research community. 49% of these beneficiaries are new to EU researchprogrammes. Over 60 000 beneficiaries have clearly not found the application processtoo complicated or burdensome.

7

The Commission made considerable efforts to simplify the application process forHorizon 2020. According to a stakeholder survey carried out by the Commission, ofthose respondents with experience in FP7 and Horizon 2020 who expressed anopinion, 75% considered that, overall, the H2020 processes were much simpler.

The Commission is however very sensitive to suggestions that the procedures ofHorizon 2020 are too complicated and will therefore continue with its simplificationefforts.

At the same time, in line with principles of sound financial management, theCommission will respect its obligations for the protection of the financial interests ofthe EU.

11. Responsibility for research and innovation spending is scattered across numerousimplementing bodies: 8 Commission DGs, seven Joint Undertakings, four executiveagencies, one decentralised agency and seven international organisations. With a viewto efficient and harmonised programme implementation is this institutional set-upsuitable for the consistent application of the funding rules? Isn't there a danger ofinconsistent treatment of beneficiaries and legal uncertainty?


In FP7, inconsistent treatment was a major complaint of beneficiaries, and regularlyhighlighted as a problem by the European Parliament and European Court of Auditors.To address this problem the Commission created, for Horizon 2020, a CommonSupport Centre (CSC) which provides, for all the services involved in implementationof the programme:

- common legal support and interpretations

- a single audit service

- common business processes

- common guidance and documentation

- common IT systems

- a common data and information system

The CSC ensures harmonisation across the different services, and so a consistenttreatment to beneficiaries. This new approach has been strongly welcomed by H2020participants and beneficiaries.

12. There are no guarantees that research projects always lead to successful outcomes;they are risky by nature. Without taking risks researchers could not have made greatscientific discoveries. However, from a budget controller's point of view we need tomake sure that money is always spent for the right purposes. The accounting ofpersonnel costs has always been a delicate exercise, difficult to calculate andmeasure, especially when several projects are running in parallel, and it is not easy toseparate activities related to them. The reimbursement of such expenditures is not

8

immune to irregularities. How does the Commission combat overcharged personneland indirect costs?


The Commission requires researchers to identify the actual time that they spend onEU projects, as this is the basis of a large part of the reimbursement made tobeneficiaries. However, it has identified a number of problems in the correctcalculation of personnel costs in payment claims. It has thus simplified the rules forHorizon 2020 to address these difficulties.

For indirect costs, the Commission and the Court regularly identified problems in FP7in what is a complex area. The flat rate for indirect costs in Horizon 2020 avoids theseproblems at source.

As well as simplifying the rules, the Commission has an internal control system thatwill combat overcharged costs. This internal control system includes controls beforepayments (including audit certificates), audits of around 700 participations per year,and a recovery process.

13. Audit certificates certifying cost claims issued by external auditors often do notidentify errors. Are the Commission's efforts to improve the reliability of thesecertificates slowly starting to bear fruit?


An analysis of the FP7 ex-post audit results revealed that the issuance of Certificate onFinancial Statements (CFS) - required when the cumulated Community financialcontribution requested exceeds € 375,000 - had a positive effect on the ex-antecontrols performed by the EC Financial Officers. In order to increase the efficiency ofthis provision, the Common Audit Service contacts the CFS auditors when thedetected error rate in a participation with a CFS audited ex-post is higher than 2%,pointing out to the divergence in audit findings.There is some evidence of improvement in audit certificates, but this is not yetconclusive. As well as improving communication towards these auditors, the key stepis the simplification of rules in Horizon 2020. Simpler rules assist auditors as well asbeneficiaries.

14. There are two reservations in the Annual Activity Report of DG RTD: a general one onthe reimbursement of cost claims under FP7 and a similar one for the Research Fundfor Coal and Steel. Could you report on the state of progress concerning theimplementation of the action plans addressing these reservations and on thecorrective actions?


FP7

The following measures aim to reduce errors under FP7:

9

- on-going efforts to give guidance and feedback to the participants and certifyingauditors to prevent errors occurring; these have been undertaken, but the mainimprovements have come for Horizon 2020, where the participant portal alreadycontains comprehensive guidance and clearer templates

- efforts to give guidance and specific trainings to the staff involved in ex-antecontrols; in particular, following the 2014 report from the Court, actions have beentaken to control and reduce the error rate by giving clearer instructions on ex-antecontrols to the Directorates dealing with FP7 payments and enhancing training forstaff. Training sessions continued in 2016.

- continuing with its control and audit work in order to further reduce the FP7 residualerror rate: a third common representative audit sample has been launched in 2016.

Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS)

For the Coal and Steel fund, the Commission has proposed an amendment of thelegal base to update the grant agreement in order to harmonise as far as possible withthe rules for Horizon 2020. The adoption of the new rules is expected in the firstquarter of 2017.

In addition, the Commission has adopted a Multi-beneficiary Model Grant Agreementfor the RFCS. The contractual provisions are now close to the H2020 rules. Aligningwith H2020 provisions and practices should increase understanding of the rules by thelarge group of beneficiaries active in both programmes. The new Agreement has beenin use since 2016.

Furthermore, Financial management systems have been reviewed and modified tobring them into line with the simplified H2020 IT systems

15. Please provide the committee with information regarding EU expenditure in research,science and innovation in 2015. Have there been an improvement with regard to theefficiency of the money spending in comparison with the previous years? Please backyour answer with data.


EU operational expenditures in research, science and innovation in 2015 are asfollows:

Budget 2015 (in EUR billion)

Horizon 2020+ Euratom +Completion

Adoptedbudget

EFSI –amending

budget

Othertransfers Final

budget

Implemented

budget

% ofImplementation

Commitments 9.163 (-0.070) +0.030 9.123 9.123100%

Payments 8.627 - +0.009 8.636 8.632 99.96%

10

The services involved in implementing Research and Innovation expenditure havefully executed the budget allocated in 2015. In general payments are being mademore quickly than ever, with 95% being made within the time limits set by theFinancial Regulation (only a small improvement from 2014, but a big improvementfrom the 73% respect of (less stringent) targets in 2012), which provides a bettersupport to researchers. 95% of contracts were signed within the target of 8 months, amajor improvement in efficiency over FP7.

16. Are all you public procurement procedures public on Commission’s site?


Yes, all public procurement procedures are published in line with publicity rules set inArticle 103 of the Financial Regulation.

Contract notices for the procedures equal or greater than thresholds under Article 118(1) of the Financial regulation (EUR 135,000.00), except negotiated procedureswithout prior publication of contract notice (Art. 134 of the Financial Regulation) arepublished in the Official Journal and on Commission's site.

Public procurement procedures between EUR 15,000.01 and EUR 135,000.00, arepublished on Commission's site.

17. Are all your contracts with public tenders published on Commission`s site?


Yes, all contracts with public tenders are published in line with publicity rules set inthe Financial Regulation

Contract notices for the procedures equal or greater than thresholds under Article 118(1) of the Financial regulation (EUR 135,000.00), except negotiated procedureswithout prior publication of contract notice (Art. 134 of the Financial Regulation) arepublished in the Official Journal and on Commission's site.

18. Please provide information regarding the level of carry-overs for committedappropriations. What amount from what was carried over from 2014 to 2015 wascancelled and why?


The amount carried over from 2014 to 2015 that was cancelled during 2015represents in total EUR 57 million. This amount corresponds to all decommitmentsmade by DG RTD during 2015 on its operational budget, both for global and individualcommitments. The EUR 57 million is split between decommitments made oncommitments authorised during 2014 (EUR 7 million) and decommitments made on

11

commitments authorised before 2014 (EUR 50 million from previous FrameworkProgrammes.

19. How many seconded national experts, contract staff, interim staff, consultants,temporary agents and officials were working in your team in 2015?


The details For DG Research and Innovation are set out in the attached table. Thesefigures show the evolution in the numbers during 2015

1/1/2015 31/12/2015

Officials 1 063 996

Temporary Agents 5 5

Contract Staff 476 456

Local Agents in delegations 20 21

Seconded National Expert 48 45

Interim Staff 1 4

External Service Providers 151 162

Total 1 764 1 689

20. Have all meetings with lobbyists (in case you had such meetings) been registered andmade public (where applicable)?


As part of the Commission’s commitment to transparency, Commissioners and theirmembers of Cabinet publish information on meetings held with organisations or self-employed individuals. Information on these meetings can be found via the link:http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/moedas_en

21. As the percentage of investment in R&D settle at 2.03% (after the upward revision ofGDP rates), what is the Commission's plan for Member States to attain the target ofinvesting 3% of GDP (key performance indicator) in research and innovation? Whatare the interactions with other actions at EU and national level? The year-to-yearchange is in average 1,4% since 2010 and when plotting this number, the target of 3%could be reach no sooner than in 2040.


The 2020 objectives include the target that 3% of GDP should be invested in Researchand Innovation. to ensure that the EU remains competitive compared to its maininternational competitors. It is therefore disappointing that the figure only increased

12

from 1.79% GDP in 2000 to 2.03% GDP in 2015. Based on recent trends the EU is noton track to reach its 3% target by 2020.

The majority of all Research and Innovation expenditure in the EU is, at the nationaland regional level in Member States and through the private sector. The Commissionplays the role of a catalyst and facilitator, encouraging increased and smarterinvestment in research and innovation by Member States and the business sectorthrough working with the Member States and the development of appropriatepolicies of open science and open innovation. Horizon 2020 is only a small part of theoverall EU spending on research and innovation, but plays an important role inleveraging funding.

Through the European Semester process the Commission aims to ensure that allpolicy tools available at the national level (monetary, fiscal and structural) are usedindividually and collectively to strengthen job creation, growth, investment andfinancial stability. As emphasised by the 2017 Annual Growth Survey, in the currentcontext marked by uncertainties, it is critical to mobilise all internal growth driversthrough an appropriate policy mix. Stress has thus been put through the Semester onthe importance of increasing investments in growth enhancing policies that driveupwards Europe's productivity and growth potential, such as research and innovation.In that context, the Commission monitors Member States' progress in reaching the EUand national R&D targets, and, where appropriate, proposes to the Councilrecommendations to Member States on the necessary reforms of the their researchand innovation systems and policies.

In 2016, 13 country-specific recommendations were issued in the domain of researchand innovation. These recommendations focused not only on achieving an adequatelevel of investment in research and innovation but also on raising the quality of publicinvestments in research and innovation, including measures to improve the broaderframework conditions for companies to invest more in research and innovation.

In addition, the Commission set up in 2015 the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility('PSF') to support Member States in the design, implementation and evaluation ofnational research and innovation policy reforms. The need for adequate investmentsin research and innovation and for operational reforms to improve the efficiency,quality and impact of those investments, are an integral component of the policyagenda of PSF country-based activities. The PSF complements the European Semesterprocess as it offers best practice, independent high-level expertise and practicalguidance for policy reform. Since the Facility was launched, 10 Member States havemade use of its services in order to strengthen their R&I systems.

22. The percentage of Share of grants signed with a time-to-grant within 245 daysdecreased from 95% to 93%. What steps is the Commission planning to increase thenumber?


Currently (December 2016) the respect of the time-to-grant target is just over 95%.The figure can fluctuate slightly over time, but still represents a very strong

13

performance by the Commission services, and a significant improvement compared toFP7.

23. Beneficiaries’ feedback indicates that funding application, evaluation, grant signature,grant management, audit and control are still burdensome. Beneficiaries need tofocus energy on what they aim to achieve with the project, not on managing theproject.


See the answer to question 10.

24. Could the Commission provide data for each Member State of absorption of the fundsallocated to research? The Commission points out that investing 3% of GDP onresearch by 2020 is a goal of the European Union. Member States must set their ownnational targets for research and development: what are the percentages of GDPcurrently spent by each Member State in research and development?


The following table gives an overview of the EU financial contribution from Horizon2020 to participants of each Member State, both in absolute figures and as apercentage of the total Horizon 2020 budget:

14

The following table provides the latest R&D intensities for each Member State (2015),compared to the individual targets set for 2020:

15

Notes: (1)IE:2014. (2)IE: 2000-2014; HR: 2002-2015; EL, LU, SE: 2003-2015; MT: 2004-2015.(3)EL, PT, SI: 2008-2015. (4)IE: 2014-2020. (5)CZ: A target (of 1%) is available only for thepublic sector. (6)IE: The national target of 2.5% of GNP has been estimated to equal 2.0% ofGDP. (7)LU: A 2020 target of 2.45% was assumed. (8)PT: A 2020 target of 3.00%. (9)DK, EL,FR, LU, HU, NL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK: Breaks in series occur between 2000 and 2000; whenthere is a break in series the growth calculation takes into account annual growth before thebreak in series and annual growth after the break in series. (10)Values in italics are estimated orprovisional.

25. Has the Commission followed the Court's recommendation to concentrate the ex-antechecks on riskier beneficiaries, thereby introducing the beneficiary risk profile, basedon results from the ex post controls and performance record? If so, could the

16

Commission provide a detailed list or table of the type of risker beneficiaries profilesand the number of controls performed as well as the detailed methodology used forthe ex-ante checks?


The Commission has followed the Court's recommendation.

In 2016 the Commission mainly dealt with payments for FP7 grants. In FP7 staff havereceived guidance on how to concentrate their checks on riskier beneficiaries orriskier types of expenditure but the data requested is not available centrally.

For Horizon 2020 the approach will be applied more systematically and morestructured information will be available through the IT systems.

HORIZON 2020

26. The Commission has set out its intention in its H2020 ex-post audit strategy to auditmaximum 7 percent of the beneficiaries in order to reduce the administrative burden.How did you arrive at this figure?


In FP7 the number of audited beneficiaries is 9.4%. This translates into a directcoverage of 9.1% of expenditure, and an indirect coverage of a further 53% ofexpenditure by the extension of audit findings.

The figure of 7% was set below the FP7 level to demonstrate a commitment tolowering the administrative burden on beneficiaries, whilst still ensuring a goodcoverage of expenditure. The Commission intends to stick to this target, although thiswill depend on the level of error identified during the programme.

27. The majority of the transactions tested by the Court in its annual report 2015 stillincluded FP 7 projects. By when do you think the impacts of the simplified rules underHorizon 2020 will be felt?


The stakeholder consultation of beneficiaries carried out by the Commission showsthat beneficiaries are already feeling the benefits of the simplified rules for Horizon2020 – please see question 10.

In its testing for the 2016 Annual Report (published in October 2017) the Court hasexamined 13 Horizon 2020 transactions out of the total of 91 research transactions.This number will increase sharply in 2017. The Commission has launched a first set of90 audits of Horizon 2020 at the end of 2016.

So, by the end of 2017 the Commission will be able to make a first preliminaryassessment of the effect of the simplified rules on the error rate.

17

28. According to the Court under the simplified H2020 rules there is an increased risk ofirregular payments in cases when researchers receive additional remuneration on thetop of their usual remuneration, which result in a higher hourly rate for specificprojects. The Court also mentions increased risks related to projects whereparticipants make use of large research infrastructure. How did the Commissionaddress the Court's observations?


The Court points out two areas which could lead to an increased risk of error: thepersonnel costs, where the legislative authority added supplementary rules to theCommission's proposal, with the provisions on additional remuneration and the costcalculation for large research infrastructure.

With respect to additional remuneration, the Commission is clarifying the applicablerules - see question 9 - and will address the risk during its audits. For largeinfrastructure costs the risk is limited by the ex-ante assessment that is necessarybefore these costs can be declared. Only participants having obtained a positive ex-ante assessment for their direct costing methodologies linked to their Large researchInfrastructure are allowed to declare costs for the use of their LRI.

29. Could the Commission report on the functioning of the Common Support Centre forresearch and Innovation and the Common Audit Service?


Please see question 11.

The Common Support Centre is functioning well and is an integral and key part of themanagement system for Horizon 2020. The stakeholder consultation carried out bythe Commission shows that the systems established by the Common Support Serviceare well appreciated: for example:

- Of those respondents with experience in FP7 and Horizon 2020, 75% confirmed that,overall, the processes in H2020 are much simpler than in FP7;

- 91% of experienced participants felt the benefit of the electronic-only signature ofgrant agreements;

- 89% of experienced participants felt the benefit of the Participant Portal as the one-stop shop for all interactions with the Commission in managing proposals and grants.

The Common Audit Service (CAS) will implement audits for all Horizon 2020 grants.This centralisation of audits for all research services in the CAS will reduce the auditburden for beneficiaries and ensures a homogeneous approach towards them.

30. What did you do in order to improve the performance indicators?


18

The legal act establishing Horizon 2020 has for the first time in FrameworkProgramme history defined a clear set of performance indicators.The Commission continuously monitors the performance of the FrameworkProgramme, including the key performance indicators stipulated in the establishingact. The latest values for all available indicators can be found in the 2015 AnnualMonitoring Report (Two Years On), which provides a comparison with the first year ofimplementation as well as the predecessor Programme, FP7. All monitoring reportsare available at:https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=monitoringIn line with principles of the Budget Focused on Results, the Commission will reviewthe existing performance indicators when preparing the proposal for the newFramework Programme and will ensure that its proposal for the next FrameworkProgramme will contain a clear set of performance indicators that will allow aneffective monitoring of results and of progress made toward achieving an impact.

31. In Horizon 2020, the current low success rate of eligible full proposals of 14% causesfrustration among the stakeholders for example in energy efficiency and renewableenergy. How does Commission plan to address oversubscription?


See question 39.

32. Many of universities and academic research institutions suffer from the Horizon 2020focus towards market-oriented research and innovation projects to the detriment ofmore frontier non-market research. How does Commission intend to correct in theremaining years of Horizon 2020 this unbalanced focus on close to market projects?


The Commission does not consider that there is an imbalance between funding onclose to market projects and frontier non-market research.

Currently, based on 2014 and 2015 calls for proposals, the amount committed to theHigher Education Sector in signed grants is €6.3bn, 39.6% of total funding. Thiscompares to €19.3bn (43%) in FP7. However, the overall size of Horizon 2020 isconsiderably bigger than in FP7 so, in financial terms, the Higher Education Sector isnot losing out. Given that €15bn of Horizon 2020 funding has so far been committedin 2014 and 2015, a continuation at current levels would see the Higher EducationSector receiving grants exceeding €25bn under Horizon 2020.

33. In the build-up and in the legislation of Horizon 2020 there were a shift from researchdriven to solving societal challenges. Is this approach seen as a success by thecommission and something we could expect to find as well in FP9?


19

An assessment of the societal challenges is currently ongoing as part of the interimevaluation of Horizon 2020.The evidence gathered, including from more than 3200responses to a public stakeholder consultation, will be presented in in a CommissionStaff Working Document, expected to be published in May 2017; the evaluation willbe concluded in a Commission Communication, expected in October 2017. In thiscontext, the Commission decided in September 2016 to set up a High Level Group ofexperts, led by Pascal Lamy, to advise on how to maximise the impact of the EU'sinvestment into research and innovation. The Commission proposal for the nextFramework Programme will take into account the results of this interim evaluation,including on the approach to societal challenges and the findings of the High LevelGroup.

34. The main problem of Horizon 2020 is to evaluate the performance: the programmepresents a lack of indicators. Could the Commission provide an overview on theperformance indicators and on the expected and achieved results?


Please see the answer to question 30.There are a range of indicators set in the legal base and the latest values for allavailable indicators can be found in the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Two YearsOn), which provides a comparison with the first year of implementation as well as thepredecessor Programme, FP7. All monitoring reports are available athttps://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=monitoringHowever data on some indicators will only be available at a later stage in theprogramme, and that some improvements in the overall performance framework areneeded.A full list of the indicators can be found on the commission websitehttps://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-indicators-assessing-results-and-impact-horizon.

35. Horizon 2020 has a major focus on innovation. This could potentially discouragecompanies to invest in R&D on their own initiative. How does the Commissionerensure that Horizon 2020 does not entirely replace private funding? So fundingprojects that R&D departments of large private companies would have done withoutEU funding as well?


The involvement of private for profit companies addresses a number of theweaknesses identified in European research and innovation: in particular it allows forlinking of academia and business, getting closer to the market, providing expertise andmore innovative approaches, availability of state of the art testing facilities, etc..

The total commitment to private for profit companies following 2014 and 2015 callsfor proposals is €4.2bn, 26.7% of the total amount. This covers SMEs as well as largerfirms. It is only a very small part of the total research effort of the private sector in theEuropean Union.

20

36. The Commission has embarked on an ambitious expedition towards open science. Itneeds to be taken into account that such expeditions are costly. Can theCommissioner provide us with its view on the return on this investment? What are theopportunities and threats along the journey? Has the Commissioner in particular metwith some of the large scientific publishers in this regard?


Open Science has the potential to increase the quality, impact and benefits of science,making it more reliable and efficient. The efficiency of science will be increased asresearchers progressively move to open science by sharing resources and avoidingduplication of similar research efforts.The potential benefits of opening up research information are clearly recognised inthe European Commission's investment plan for Europe where it is stated that inorder to "boost research and innovation, EU competitiveness would benefit fromfewer barriers to knowledge transfer, open access to scientific research and greatermobility of researchers."4

Open access to publications can help to overcome the barriers that innovativecompanies, in particular SMEs, face in accessing the results of research funded by thepublic purse. It has been estimated that switching to open access results in significantsavings.A specific example of the economic impact of opening up research data are theCopernicus earth observation satellites. Their data will be freely available and areexpected to generate significant possibilities for growth and jobs by 2050. TheEuropean Bioinformatics Institute of the European Molecular Biology Laboratorygenerates a benefit to users and their funders of around 1.3 billion euros per year bymaking scientific information freely available to the global life science community.This is equivalent to more than 20 times the direct operational cost of the institute.Finally, the Human Genome Project has made its data open access and has spawnedthe creation of a whole new industry.Commissioner Moedas gave a key note speech on 18 October 2016 at the Conferenceof the International Association of STM publishers in Frankfurt am Main, Germanyaddressing the need for the transition to open access. He also met with a number ofstakeholders: publishers, funding and University Organisations. The objective of theEU and Member States to have by 2020 all publications in open access mode bydefault was discussed.Subsequently this was discussed at the second meeting of the Open Science PolicyPlatform on 9 December. The members of this platform are EU branch organisationsand include all stakeholders, e.g.: publishers, research and university organisations,library organisations, citizen science organisations, research funders, open scienceintermediaries and academies of sciences. The platform will inform and advise theCommission on realising the European Open Science Agenda.The most costly part in terms of investment in Open Science concerns theestablishment of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) which will create a virtualenvironment for all European researchers to store, manage analysis and re-use data.

4 (Com 2014 903 final) p.16.

21

This will be possible through a federation of existing and emerging datainfrastructures which will thus create added value in terms of scale, and foster data-driven science, inter-disciplinary work and innovation.The Commission has allocated funds to the European Cloud Initiative through Horizon2020. Over its entire lifetime, Horizon 2020 may contribute over EUR 2 billion to theEuropean Cloud Initiative. This includes:(a) relevant actions under the Work Programmes of 2014-2015;(b) direct actions foreseen in 2016-2017, including the mainstreaming of the OpenData pilot across all areas of Horizon 2020; and(c) preparations for future actions under the Work Programme 2018-2020.The Research Infrastructures Programme supports the integration of national researchinfrastructures at EU level, through the Integrating Activity grants. It also supports thedevelopment and interoperability (EU and global level) of pan-Europeaninfrastructures, in particular data infrastructures, supporting implementation of ESFRI5

projects and other world class research infrastructures.In the context of the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020, the Commission services arereviewing the use of such measures in Research and Innovation activities, assessingwhat types of incentives actually work for mobilising the funds. Member States have akey role to play in ensuring that structural funds can be used alongside Horizon 2020funding, to support the EOSC.

37. The pre-financing of Horizon 2020 projects has been lowered compared to the pre-financing of FP7 projects. How does the Commissioner ensure that this will not causepayment problems in the future?


The reduction in prefinancing will have some effect on the level of final paymentswhen projects are completed in 2019-2020. However, the Commission considers thatif its MFF review proposals are accepted then there should be no payment shortage.

38. We understand that the European Innovation Council is to fund disruptive innovationthrough bottom-up calls. How much funding will be made available for these calls?The pilot will run during the H2020 work programme 2018 – 2020. Will theCommissioner be able to specify when the pilot will run and could the Commissionergive some more detailed information about the set-up of the pilot? How will this pilotbe evaluated?


As announced in the Commission Communication on Europe’s next leaders: the start-up and scale-up Initiative, the European Commission will consider creating a EuropeanInnovation Council with the aim of fostering breakthrough innovations that cancapture and create new markets. The Commission intends to launch a number ofpreparatory measures in the remaining period of Horizon 2020. These will include:

5 European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures – http://www.esfri.eu/

22

- adopting a fully 'bottom-up' approach – so that innovative projects that cut acrosssectors/technologies become eligible for support;

- making it easier for start-ups to access financial and technical support;

- and targeting market-creating, breakthrough innovations with scale-up potential.

The total budget associated with the activities proposed to be included in the EICpreparatory phase amounts to about €2.5 billion. Building on this, and based on theresults of the mid-term evaluation of Horizon 2020, the European Commission willconsider creating a European Innovation Council for future programmes.

39. The European Parliament appreciates the Commission efforts to improve theperformance of Horizon 2020. However, we observe decreasing success rate ofapplications- 13.2% in 2014 and 10.7% in 2015. A very large number of projectsreceived top marks by the independent evaluators but did not get funding. This is ademotivation factor for successful researchers who have invested in developing theproject proposal. How do you plan to close this exclusion gap?


Horizon 2020 has proved to be very attractive, especially as funding for Research andInnovation at national level is declining. By covering the whole innovation cycle,Horizon 2020 has a larger scope than FP7, while simplification measures make thecalls more accessible than ever. Calls in the first work programme have attracted verylarge number of applicants, including many newcomers. But with finite budgets, thishas also led to average success rates that are markedly lower than those we sawunder FP7.

It is important to strike the right balance between funding excellent proposals andrewarding of good efforts in preparing such proposals by providing a reasonablechance of success. We continue to fine-tune work programmes, for example bytightening descriptions, to make clear what is covered, and by extending the use oftwo-stage calls where these can help reduce the burden on unsuccessful applicants.The introduction of a pilot Seal of Excellence scheme under the SME instrument aimsto facilitate funding from other source of proposals that have been evaluated andfound to be of high quality, but for which there were insufficient funds under Horizon2020.

In the next work programme, covering the period 2018-2020, the Commission willseek to achieve a better match of supply and demand, by designing topics that areallocated sufficient budget to support portfolios of projects. The aim is to increase theproportion of high quality proposals that can be funded.

Europe is faced with many pressing challenges, but Research and Innovation is aninvestment for the future. The huge success and the notable oversubscription ofHorizon 2020 points towards the need for a substantial budget for the successorprogramme.

23

40. Only 38% of successful candidates are new to the programme. How do you plan toencourage newcomers and to open-up to the generation of researchers, innovatorsand entrepreneurs we want to create in the EU?


According to Commission figures (H2020 monitoring report 2015), 49% of participantsin grants signed following calls for proposals in Horizon 2020 from 2014 and 2015were newcomers. The number of participations from newcomers in the EU-13 wasconsiderably higher than those from EU-15. This is a considerable advance on FP7.

41. 6 EU member states get 70% of the H2020 funding. H2020 is a market-orientedfunding instrument. However, if a number of countries underperforms, significantefforts should be invested for improving the outcomes. More success in EasternEurope is needed to improve the image of EU investment there and to accelerate theeconomies. How do you intend to achieve this?


The Commission is aware of the challenge of addressing the issue of wideningparticipation. This was highlighted at the recent conference 'Spreading Excellence andCrossing the Innovation Divide' organised under the Slovak Presidency with theparticipation of Commissioner Moedas. Horizon 2020 provides specific support forMember States with lower performance in research and innovation (R&I) through theactivity 'Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation', to help them strengthenperformance and increase participation in EU R&I funding programmes.Its actions, with a budget of more than EUR 800 million, are: 'Teaming', supporting thedevelopment of centres of excellence via partnerships with institutions of R&Iexcellence; 'Twinning', to build on the potential of institutional networking; and 'ERAChairs', to bring excellent researchers to institutions with high potential.Recently, through the Teaming measure, support for 10 new Centres of Excellence hasbeen announced, with up to EUR 15 million of Horizon 2020 support for each.Furthermore, support is provided to connect unexploited pockets of excellencethroughout the EU, through the networking activities of the European Cooperation inScience and Technology programme (COST)The Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility gives EU Member State governments supportto identify, implement and evaluate the reforms needed to enhance the quality ofnational R&I systems. The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) providesupport for capacity-building in innovation, in particular to the less developed EUregions (see reply to question 46).

It is expected that these actions will significantly address underperformance andimprove success rates of these countries in Horizon 2020.

42. National contact points serve as the technical assistance network of Horizon 2020.However, in a number of Member States, when it comes to on-the-ground activity,NCPs fail to be proactive and underperform. Do you intend to introduce performance

24

assessment for the NCP network? Do you plan to upgrade the NCPs to technicalassistance platforms?


The Commission has extensive training and help-desk facilities to support NationalContact Points in their work. Simplification of procedures under Horizon 2020 shouldalso bring benefits to the work of the NCPs.

43. There are several possibilities for synergy between Horizon 2020 and EuropeanStructural and Investment Funds (ESIF). However, further instructions on how toimplement such synergies are needed in the Member States. Do you foresee any kindof training for NCs, National administration and others?


The framework for synergies is now in place in the regulatory documents of Horizon2020 and ESIF: the respective regulations of both H2020 and ESIF already provide forthe harmonisation of some rules and procedures. The challenge is to implementsynergies on the ground in the Member States. For this purpose, the Commission (DGRTD jointly with DG REGIO) has taken a number of actions. For example, guidance onthe development of synergies to the relevant authorities was adopted in 2014. In2016, a publication showcased examples of synergies at strategic, programming andproject implementation levels coming mostly from the previous programming period(2007-2013) and also highlighting initiatives with a high potential for synergies duringthe current programming period (2014-2020).

The Commission has communicated and provided information on the synergy policy ata high number of inter-institutional meetings as well as in other events, conferencesand workshops. DG RTD has delivered training on synergies to various externalaudiences, such as Horizon 2020 National Contact Points, and to the staff of theCommission and Executive Agencies.Additionally, the Commission provided via the European Parliament -sponsoredStairway to Excellence (S2E) initiative in 2015 and 2016 assistance to EU Member

States and regions with the aim of closing the innovation gap, improve the innovationeco-systems and necessary reforms therein, and promoting R&I excellence acrossEurope.This initiative provides for all EU-13 countries national events, analysis and discussionswith peer-from other EU countries and EU initiatives (such as the "Seal of Excellence",EIT-KICs) to facilitate mutual learning also on how best to generate synergies betweenESI Funds and H2020. The main issues addressed were :- quality of R&I governance and the entrepreneurial discovery process for identifyingand implementing smart specialisation priorities- capacity building and accessing international networks- how to get from research to commercialisationDG RTD and DG REGIO have commissioned studies to provide evidence on thedevelopment of synergies between funds. These studies will be completed in 2017.

25

Based on the outcomes of these studies, the Commission will consider appropriatemeasures for policy action.The importance of synergies will be addressed in a Commission Communication onsmart specialisation strategies and synergies to be adopted in the first semester of2017.The S2E initiative will in 2017 continue providing support to Member States andregions. In line with the new mandate from the European Parliament - thegeographical scope will be extended also to the EU15. Finally, in line with the thematicorientation adopted in the context of the launching of the new Thematic SmartSpecialization Platforms, the S2E will reinforce thematic support to enhance regionalinvestments under S3 priorities and the opportunities offered by Horizon 2020 andother R&I funding programmes.

44. After the first 100 calls of Horizon 2020, the first stage attracted 81% of theapplications, the second 16% and the third 3%. However, we don’t know how much ofthe applicants benefited from more than one stage. Since the product developmentand commercialization would lead to net profits for the business, would it be possiblea strong policy to be established for the potential beneficiaries to apply consequentlyfor more than one stage?


The Commission does not recognise these figures and would be grateful forclarification of the information requested.

45. Have you already set up performance indicators for the European Innovation Council?What are the expected outcomes?


The preparatory phase for an EIC in the work programmes 2018-2020 of Horizon 2020will involve a close monitoring of the progress and results. This will be based on theresults reported by the projects themselves (e.g. number of spin-off companies,product launches) and gathered by tapping into other sources of information whereavailable, such as on company growth data, private finance attracted, experts'assessments of the innovations by an Innovation Radar.

A possible EIC will be considered as part of the Commission proposal for the nextFramework Programme which is due in 2018. Performance indicators will be part ofthat proposal.

46. EU trends show that most Member States have put R&D investments high on thepolicy agenda for combating the effects of the crisis. However, due to the economiccrisis, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary have significantly reduced funding forpublic R&D. How has the Commission assisted Member States whose researchspending show a downward trend in order to balance this decreasing in nationalprograms for R&D?

26


Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary have indeed reduced their level of publicspending on R&D since 2009, when it was already significantly under the EU average.More positive trends in Research and Innovation in the private sector have howevercounter-balanced this effect over the period. It can also be noted that Portugal,Slovenia and the UK also reduced their public research expenditure, but from asignificantly higher level.EU programmes, both Horizon 2020 and the European Structural and InvestmentFunds (ESIF) are important sources of funding for research and innovation. It shouldbe stressed, however, that these programmes are designed to maximise Europeanadded value and therefore to complement national funding for research andinnovation and not compensate for a lack of national funding.In addition, to support Member States in improving the design, implementation and

evaluation of R & I policies, the Commission has set up the Horizon 2020 PolicySupport Facility (PSF, see https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-support-facility). ThePSF complements the European Semester process as it offers best practice,independent high-level expertise and guidance to improve R&I policies, at the requestof Member States and Associated Countries.Since the PSF was launched, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Croatia have made useof its services to strengthen their R&I systems.The Bulgarian authorities requested an evaluation of their R&I system using theHorizon 2020 Policy Support Facility (PSF). A PSF panel of high-level experts publishedin October 2015 a report with Policy Messages, supported by operationalrecommendations (https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-support-facility/peer-review-bulgarian-research-and-innovation-system). As a follow-up, a specific supportactivity on the topic of performance-based institutional funding was also launched in2016. The Bulgarian authorities also participated in a Mutual Learning Exercise (MLE)on the Evaluation of complex public private partnerships.A Peer Review of Hungary's R&I system, notably focusing on structural reforms topublic funding, research careers and on public private knowledge transfer, wasconcluded in September 2016 (https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-support-facility/peer-review-hungarian-ri-system). The Hungarian authorities also participatedin MLEs on the evaluation of complex public private partnerships and the evaluationof business R&D grant schemes.

For Romania, a specific support activity was launched in 2016 to assess theentrepreneurship ecosystem. The objective is to provide a set of concreterecommendations on how to implement a reform for stimulating innovativeentrepreneurship and for creating an environment conducive for growth oftechnological start-ups. The Romanian authorities also participated in the MLE on theevaluation of business R&D grant schemes and on alignment and interoperability ofresearch programmes.

Croatia participated in a MLE on the administration and monitoring of Research andInnovation tax incentives.

27

47. The report on first results on Horizon 2020 shows significant variance on the successrates of eligible applications per Member States. Has the Commission assessed thecauses of these differences, in particular in the Member States with the lowestsuccess rates?


See question 41.

48. According to the 2015 Activity Report of the European Research Council ExecutiveAgency (ERCEA) 115631 Grant Agreements from the Horizon 2020 calls were signedthroughout the year, totalling to € 1, 8 billion. Could you provide the number of signedagreements and the respective financing per Member State?


The ERCEA 2015 Annual Activity Report states that the agency signed 1156 frontierresearch grants in 2015. The country breakdown for number of grants andrespective financing is displayed in the following table.

STG COG POC ADGTotalGrants

Financingamount in €

AT Austria 2015 14 7 1 3 25 40,416,919

BE Belgium 13 12 4 4 33 52,197,087

CH Switzerland 6 8 22 36 61,819,788

CY Cyprus 1 1 2 1,988,628

CZCzechRepublic 1 3 1 5 10,288,102

DE Germany 77 68 18 30 193 319,786,024

DK Denmark 14 9 2 6 31 53,218,459

EE Estonia 1 1 1,999,289

EL Greece 1 2 3 2,294,588

ES Spain 25 30 16 13 84 126,450,116

FI Finland 8 4 2 2 16 25,587,793

FR France 58 53 11 23 145 240,251,021

HR Croatia 1 1 2,150,000

HU Hungary 2 4 6 10,202,760

IE Ireland 11 7 3 1 22 32,337,315

IL Israel 35 12 17 4 68 87,127,669

IS Iceland 1 1 2 2,149,188

IT Italy 22 19 10 11 62 83,554,258

LU Luxembourg 1 1 1,929,976

NL Netherlands 52 32 16 17 117 183,506,385

28

NO Norway 6 4 1 3 14 25,145,040

PL Poland 1 1 150

PT Portugal 6 9 2 17 31,343,553

RO Romania 1 1 2 2,109,375

RS Serbia 1 1 1,714,880

SE Sweden 10 9 7 3 29 40,699,995

TR Turkey 2 2 4 1,797,160

UKUnitedKingdom 78 82 28 47 235 381,741,866

2015 442 371 151 192 1156 1,823,957,232

49. In the public consultation on the evaluation of FP7, some stakeholders and fundingbeneficiaries stated that they were still experiencing problems relating toimplementation under H2020, for example in relation to the time to grant rule andthe lack of certainty over the audit strategy. What action has the Commission taken toresolve these issues for beneficiaries relating to the transition to H2020?


Please see the reply to Question 10.

95% of grants are signed within the limit of 245 days set in the Regulation, and this is asignificant reduction from FP7.

There is a single audit service for all Horizon 2020 expenditure, which will ensure aconsistency of approach to beneficiaries and avoid over-auditing. In addition theCommission has committed itself to limit audits to 7% of the number of participants,thus limiting the overall administrative burden on participants.

50. How would you explain the drop in the success rate of universities bidding for Horizon2020 funding and what solutions did you propose?


Please see question 32.

51. How do you plan to close the gap between the older Member States – the so-calledEU15, who regularly top the EU’s innovation scoreboard – and the newer EU13Member States?


Actions to address the challenge of closing the innovation gap are described in thereply to question 41.

29

52. What are the largest ongoing Horizon 2020 projects in terms of the fundedamounts and which are the enterprises or stakeholders running the projects?


Please see the annex, which sets out the 20 biggest projects funded and theircoordinator.

53. How the flat rate for staff costs does differ for EIT from the past FP7 transition toHorizon 2020, and what are the objectives that the enterprises beneficiaries have tofulfil?


Flat-rate for staff costs

Flat rate reimbursement of staff costs by the EIT under Horizon 2020 is in line with thestandard Horizon 2020 model grant agreement, and affects only personnel costs forSME owners or other natural persons not receiving a salary. There is no change tothese rules from FP7.

In practice, the EIT’s beneficiaries, the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs),very rarely use this simplified cost option. Less than 1% of the staff costs reported byKICs fall into this category, i.e. the vast majority of costs are reported and reimbursedon an actual basis.

Flat-rate for indirect costs

The European Court of Auditors qualified its opinion on the EIT’s 2015 accounts on thebasis that all the transactions underlying the annual accounts are legal and regular ‘inall material respects‘, except for one specific issue relating to the use of indirect costrates for universities, research organisations and SMEs in 2014. The ECA is of theopinion that EIT was not allowed to reimburse indirect costs of these organisationsbased on a 40% flat rate, as was the rule and practice from 2010 to 2013, but shouldhave used a 25% flat rate starting from 2014, as established in the new rules forHorizon 2020 approved in December 2013.

The EIT disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of the applicable legal basis and doesnot accept that the EIT made irregular payments to KICs. The EIT launched the 2014grant allocation process in spring 2013, when the new rules were not yet known. TheHorizon 2020 legal basis explicitly provides for transitional measures, which were, inthe interpretation of the EIT and the European Commission, fully applicable to the EITfrom 1 January 2014, since the EIT is an integral part of Horizon 2020. Consequently,in the opinion of the EIT, payments based on a 40% flat rate to reimburse the indirectcosts of universities, research organisations and SMEs were legal and regular in 2014..The European Commission supports the approach taken by the EIT and theCommission has recently re-confirmed the lawfulness of the approach.

This is a one-off issue, from 2015 the reimbursement rules for grants will be alignedwith Horizon 2020 rules.

Objectives of KICs and KIC Partners

30

KICs are autonomous partnership of higher education institutions, researchorganisations, companies and other stakeholders in the form of strategic networks,set up to meet the EIT challenges and contribute to attaining the objectivesestablished under Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and ofthe Council (Horizon 2020 Regulation). The EIT’ General Objectives, Specific Objectivesand result indicators for the period from 2014 to 2020 are defined in Horizon 2020Regulation and in the EIT’s Strategic Innovation Agenda (Decision 1312/2013/EU ofthe European Parliament and of the Council).

The long-term strategic objectives of the KICs are set out in their Strategic Agendasthat are annexed to the seven-year EIT-KIC Framework Partnership Agreements. KICsimplement their long-term Strategic Agendas through annual business plans with thesupport of the EIT financial contribution. In line with the EIT Regulation, “KICs shallhave substantial overall autonomy to define their … precise agenda and workingmethods” and “KICs shall establish business plans with objectives and keyperformance indicators”. Therefore, as regards annual grants awarded to the KICs,detailed operational objectives, deliverables, indicators and expected results to beachieved by the KICs are established by the KICs in their annual business plans. Asummary of each KIC’s objectives for 2017 can be found in the EIT Single ProgrammingDocument 2017-2019 (pages 103-107):

https://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/gb_decision_30_final_single_programming_document_2017-2019.pdf.

As far as individual KIC Partners, as final beneficiaries of the EIT-KIC grants, areconcerned, their operational objectives depend on the activities in which theyparticipate. KICs carry out several KIC added-value activities every year, contributingto the integration of the knowledge triangle of higher education, research andinnovation, and contributing to the overall objectives of the EIT. Since not all KICPartners participate in every activity, the operational objectives, deliverables andresults expected from those entities are different.

54. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous fournir une liste avec toutes les entreprises cotées enbourse et qui ont des bénéfices dans leurs bilans de fin d'année et qui reçoivent desfonds de l'Horizon 2020, repris par nationalité ?


The Commission does not possess the information requested.

Potential conflict of interest, anti-fraud strategy and OLAF

55. Given the extensive number of grant agreements managed by the agency according tothe report there are only 2 cases which are subject of in-depth monitoring controls forirregularities and fraud, 4 under OLAF investigation and a last one being assessed byOLAF. These are relatively small numbers in comparison to other EU programmes. Doyou consider that the current system for prevention of irregularities and combatingfraud is efficient enough?

31

Commission's answer:The relatively small numbers of cases reported under "fraud and irregularities" canbe explained by the following:Lower risk profile of ERC beneficiaries - ERC grant schemes are special in relation tothe profile of the beneficiaries (His - host institution) who are predominantly mono-beneficiary, large and renowned public entities with expected lower fraud risk incomparison with multi-partner projects (e.g. SMEs) and few entities with no trackrecord in previous Framework Programmes (e.g. newcomer applicants). A singleHI/PI (host institution / Principal investigators ) type of project also facilitates projectmonitoring and thereby decreases the risk of fraud.Lower risk profile of the ERC grant scheme – Moreover, in comparison to manyother EU research funding schemes, most of which having a co-financingrequirement, the ERC grant schemes provide funding to researchers offering 100%reimbursement of direct eligible costs together with a flat rate for indirect costs (ofthe total all direct eligible costs, excluding subcontracting and resources madeavailable by third parties not used on the premises of the beneficiaries, as well asfinancial support to third parties), the latter reducing the opportunity to commiterrors and fraud.ERC lower ex post control error rate - Inherently lower exposure to fraud risk forthe ERC grant schemes is confirmed by the constant low ex post control error rate ofERC grants. In 2015 the cumulative detected error rate resulting from the 2009 to2015 ex-post audit activity related to FP7 payments clearly indicates that the ERCerror rate (1.50%) is below the materiality threshold of 2%.The relatively small number of cases reported under "fraud and irregularities" does

not mean that the system in place to prevent such "fraud and irregularities" is noteffective. In addition to potential fraud cases, the agency also analyses numerouscases with the "ERC Procedure to deal with information on scientific misconduct"which involves the ERC Scientific Council Standing Committee on Conflict of Interest,Scientific Misconduct and Ethical Issues (CoIME).

56. In 2015, DG RTD referred 13 cases to OLAF and 20 cases were initiated by OLAF on thebasis of information received from other sources. What is the state of play regardingthese cases? How many investigations are closed and how many are still ongoing? DidDG RTD take any steps to follow them up?


In 2015, DG RTD transmitted 13 cases of suspicion of irregularities to OLAF concerningresearch beneficiaries. According to the information available in DG RTD, 8 cases weredismissed by OLAF; for 5 cases OLAF decided to open an investigation, which are stillongoing. In addition to these 13 cases, OLAF opened 20 cases relevant to DG RTD onthe basis of information received from other sources. Out of these 20 cases, OLAFdismissed (or closed without follow-up) 11 cases. For 9 cases, OLAF decided to openan investigation, 6 investigations are still ongoing, OLAF recently completed 2investigations with a recommendation for DG RTD to take the appropriate measuresto ensure the recovery of the undue funds from the beneficiaries concerned. The

32

recovery procedures will be launched shortly. In 1 case, OLAF issued a financialrecommendation to DG CNECT.

57. What is your policy regarding the whistle-blowers? Do you work with them?


There are no specific rules for the DG RTD. Therefore, the rules of the staff regulations– common to the whole Commission - and their Implementing Rules apply. Please seequestion 61.

58. Do you have practical guide on management and prevention of conflict of interest foryour staff?


Rules and guidance on ethics and on the avoidance of conflict of interest are availableon the Commission internet:

https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/ethics/obligations/Documents/Rapport_ethics_EN_web.pdf and

https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/ethics/obligations/conflicts_interest/Pages/conflicts_interest.aspx

https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/hr_admin/en/ethics/obligations/Pages/index.aspx

DG RTD provides links to the relevant pages of the Commission intranet from its ownintranet. The RTD ethics correspondent is available to advise staff and managementwith regard to conflict of interest situations.

59. Did you undertake in 2015 any steps for the establishment of severe and clear rulesagainst ´´revolving doors´´?


The issue of staff leaving the EU public service to take up positions in the privatesector, or staff joining the EU public service from the private sector, is often referredto as the 'revolving doors' phenomenon. The EU Staff Regulations (SRs) andConditions of Employment of Other Servants of the EU (CEOS), oblige EU staff to carryout their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of the Union inmind.

When assessing the possible risks linked to the 'revolving doors' phenomenon, theCommission's approach, takes account of several key principles namely, transparencyand accountability, the rule of law, the right to work, the right to protection ofpersonal data and finally, the principle of proportionality.

Following the 2014 revision of the Staff Regulations, the Commission, startedimplementing new provisions which reinforced the possibility to monitor staff and

33

their relations with the private sector. At various stages in an official's career theCommission checks whether personal interests might impair his or her independence,specifically during the recruitment procedure and after an official's return from leaveon personal grounds.

Additional restrictions have been introduced as regards former staff. They includeprohibiting senior managers from engaging in lobbying or advocacy activities whenthis is associated with their former occupation. This prohibition is applicable for oneyear and the provision was systematically implemented in 2015. Also, 2015 was thefirst year covered by the annual public implementation of such prohibition. TheCommission was the first institution to release its report.

60. Had you introduced internal whistleblowing rules? How many whistle-blower casesdid the institution had in 2015?


The Commission's policy vis-à-vis whistleblowers is based on the rules set out in theStaff Regulations since 2004, and on the guidelines issued to staff members in 2012,together with a list of Frequently Asked Questions on the subject. The objective of thepolicy is to provide a clear system in which the staff can have confidence.

The Guidelines explain to staff when and how to blow the whistle, where to seekguidance in case of doubt, and they highlight the protection offered to whistleblowerswho acted in good faith.

The protection includes measures to safeguard the confidentiality of the identity ofthe whistleblower and to protect the whistleblower against any form of retaliation,including a reversal of the burden of proof: it shall be up to the person taking anyadverse measure against a whistleblower to establish that the measure was motivatedby reasons other than the reporting.

At the end of 2015, pursuant to the Guidelines' review clause, the Commissionconducted an assessment of their effectiveness. The assessment, finalised in 2016,concluded that while there is no need to change the content of the Guidelines, it isrecommended to increase staff awareness of the whistleblowing rules and guidelines,in particular managers', who play a pivotal role in the reporting system. Raisingawareness of relevant rules and guidelines amongst staff is a must, as every caseinvolving serious irregularities that goes unreported and undetected is one too many.

According to OLAF statistics, there were five whistleblowing reports received fromCommission staff in 2015, which corresponds to a slight increase compared to 2014.The reported number is consistent with the experience of other internationalorganisations. It is worth noting that most cases of serious irregularities arediscovered and reported in the normal line of work, without explicit reference to thewhistleblowing rules. The guidelines are effective when they encourage staff to makeuse of the whistleblowing rules in appropriate cases, and also have the role of actingas a 'filter', by clearly explaining when the whistleblowing procedure should not beused.

34

61. How did you co-operate with OLAF and ECA in the spheres of prevention, investigationor corrective measures?


DG RTD cooperates with OLAF in the spheres of prevention, investigation or correctivemeasures at different levels. As far as general anti-fraud matters are concerned, DGRTD actively participates in the meetings of the Fraud Prevention and DetectionNetwork (FPDNet) chaired by OLAF which is the forum of the Commission and theAgencies to exchange information and best practices on various anti-fraud issues.

The relations between DG RTD and OLAF for external OLAF investigations aremanaged by the Common Audit Service. This unit closely monitors all the individualOLAF cases and ensures the coordination with OLAF and the different services of theResearch family managing grants with the beneficiaries concerned. The collaborationis based on the provisions of the 'Administrative Arrangements on co-operation andtimely exchange of Information between the Commission and OLAF', which wassigned on 29 January 2015. In this context, the Common Audit Service holds regularlymeetings with the OLAF investigators on individual cases and annual meetings with itscounterparts from OLAF to examine the state of play of ongoing cases.

The European Court of Auditors passes any suspicion of fraud to OLAF. RTD servicesare regularly in touch with staff of the Court, either in the examination of individualcases or more generally on issues of risks in the control system.

Where OLAF receives initial information from the ECA arising from an audit or visit toan entity in connection with research projects, OLAF liaises with both ECA and theResearch DG or Agency. OLAF does this to receive further information from the ECAand also from the Research DG or Agency concerning the project(s) underinvestigation, beneficiaries involved and EU money paid to the coordinator or entitiesunder investigation. This procedure is followed in cases received from the ECAinvolving projects managed by both DG RTD and other DGs and Agencies within theResearch family.

Appropriate preventative or corrective measures are taken, following conclusions ofthe OLAF investigation in accordance with OLAF's administrative and financialrecommendations. These may include financial recovery or administrative measures,including on the basis of recommendations of the EDES panel.

62. Were there any cases reported, investigated and concluded in 2015?


For the potential irregularities and fraud cases relevant to DG RTD that were reportedto OLAF and investigated in 2015, reference is made to the Commission's answer toquestion 56.

As far as the cases relevant to DG RTD are concerned that were concluded in 2015(including some originating from previous years), the situation is as follows: Accordingto the information available in DG RTD, OLAF dismissed (or closed without making anyrecommendation) 22 cases. In addition, OLAF closed 6 investigations with

35

recommendations for administrative, financial and/or judicial follow-up. In thiscontext, DG RTD launched recovery procedures to 5 beneficiaries, which are stillongoing. In June 2016, one beneficiary was excluded from future grant awardprocedures for a duration of 3 years.

BREXIT

63. Does the Commission have at this stage of the Brexit process already made thenecessary assessment of the possible impact of UK withdrawal in the area of H2020at all levels (without prejudicing the commencement of negotiations underArticle 50)?


It is too early to consider the future impact of Brexit on R&I policy and funding. Thiswill be addressed in due course in the context of negotiations that can only start aftera notification from the UK to leave the Union has been made.

36

Annex – see question 52

Top 20 signed projects in terms of the funded amount for H2020

The list of projects and their requested EC contribution

ProjectAcronym Project Title Project Free Keywords

Topic UniqueProgrammePartDescription

TotalRequestedECContribution

Coordinator LegalName and Country

EUROfusion

Implementationof activitiesdescribed in theRoadmap toFusion duringHorizon 2020through a Jointprogramme ofthe members oftheEUROfusionconsortium Nuclear Fusion

EuratomResearch andTrainingProgramme2014-2018 424.800.000

MAX-PLANCK-GESELLSCHAFT ZURFORDERUNG DERWISSENSCHAFTENEV Germany

H2020

COST at aturning point: Auniqueframework forpan-EuropeanST cooperationas cleardemonstrationof Europeanvalues

networking, research andinnovation, science andtechnology, knowledgesharing, interdisciplinary,openness, inclusiveness,bottom-up, pan-Europeancooperation, output-oriented

Supportingaccess tointernationalnetworks forexcellentresearchersand innovatorswho lacksufficientinvolvement inEuropean andinternationalnetworks 89.619.171

COST ASSOCIATIONBelgium

GrapheneCore1

Graphene-baseddisruptivetechnologies

Graphene, layered materials,innovation

Future andEmergingTechnologies(FET) 89.000.000

CHALMERSTEKNISKAHOEGSKOLA ABSweden

HBP SGA1

Human BrainProject SpecificGrantAgreement 1

mouse brain, human brain,transcriptome, simulation,reconstruction,neuroinformatics, biologicalsignatures of disease, highperformance computing,neuromorphic computing,neurorobotics

Future andEmergingTechnologies(FET) 89.000.000

ECOLEPOLYTECHNIQUEFEDERALE DELAUSANNESwitzerland

GN4-2

GN4-2Research andEducationNetworking -GÉANT

Networks, researchnetworking, mult-domainnetworking, communicationnetworks, secure, trust,innovation, media,information society,computer sciences, e-infrastructure,communication commons

ResearchInfrastructures 59.000.000

GEANT LIMITEDUnited Kingdom

HBM4EU

EuropeanHumanBiomonitoringInitiative

Human biomonitoring,exposure biomarkers, effectbiomarkers, Endocrinedisruptors, cohorts, healthsurveys, chemical mixtures,

Health,demographicchange andwellbeing 49.933.776

UMWELTBUNDESAMTGermany

37

reference values, HBMvalues, emerging chemicals,policy translation

PROMOTION

PROMOTioN -Progress onMeshed HVDCOffshoreTransmissionNetworks

HVDC, offshore, wind power,North sea, transmissionsystems, circuit breakers,protection systems, dioderectifier converter, meshedHVDC grid, grid regulation,financing of infrastructure

Secure, cleanand efficientenergy 39.327.744

DNV GLNETHERLANDS B.V.Netherlands

H2ME 2

HydrogenMobility Europe2

New fuel cell vehiclesolutions, high utilization,grid balancing, energystorage

Smart, greenand integratedtransport 34.999.549

ELEMENT ENERGYLIMITED UnitedKingdom

PACE

Pathway to aCompetitiveEuropean FCmCHP market

commercialisation,demonstration, fuel cellmicro-CHP, fuel cell mCHP,large-scaledeployment,combined heat and power,supply chain, supportnetworks


THE EUROPEANASSOCIATION FORTHE PROMOTION OFCOGENERATION VZWBelgium

SeNaTe

SevenNanometerTechnology

Semiconductor process,equipment and materials

Information andCommunicationTechnologies 32.251.417

ASML NETHERLANDSB.V. Netherlands

Project

Acronym Project Title Project Free Keywords

Topic UniqueProgrammePartDescription

TotalRequestedECContribution

Coordinator Legal Nameand Country

H2ME

HydrogenMobilityEurope

HRS, FCEVs, H2 stationnetwork,commercialisation,hydrogen technologiesroll-out, early adopters,consumer behaviour,TCO, LCA, Nextgeneration

Smart, greenand integratedtransport 32.000.000

ELEMENT ENERGYLIMITED United Kingdom

IoF2020

Internet ofFood andFarm 2020

Internet of Things, IoT,Agri-Food, smart farming,smart farming, precisionfarming, food security,business innovation, largescale pilot, food chain, IoTbusiness integration, data-driven farming


STICHTINGWAGENINGENRESEARCH Netherlands

TAKE5

TechnologyAdvancesand KeyEnablers for 5nm

Semiconductor process,equipment and materials


ASML NETHERLANDSB.V. Netherlands

SmartEnCity

TowardsSmart ZeroCO2 CitiesacrossEurope


FUNDACION TECNALIARESEARCH &INNOVATION Spain

EU-ToxRisk

An IntegratedEuropean‘Flagship’ProgramDriving

Systems toxicology,molecular mechanisms,AOPs, cheminformatics,biokinetics, computationalmodelling, repeated dose

Health,demographicchange andwellbeing 27.798.299

UNIVERSITEIT LEIDENNetherlands

38

Mechanism-basedToxicityTesting andRiskAssessmentfor the 21stCentury

toxicity, developmentaland reproduction toxicity,risk assessment

EXILVA

Flagshipdemonstrationof anintegratedplant towardslarge scalesupply andmarketassessmentof MFC

Food security,sustainableagriculture andforestry, marineand maritimeand inlandwater researchand thebioeconomy 27.433.611

BORREGAARD ASNorway

WAYTOGO FAST

WhichArchitectureYields TwoOtherGenerationsOf FullydepletedAdvancedSubstrate andTechnologies

Digital CMOS technology,14nm node, FDSOI,advanced SOI substrate,strain SOI substrate


STMICROELECTRONICSCROLLES 2 SAS France

Triangulum

Triangulum:The ThreePoint Project /Demonstrate.Disseminate.Replicate.

Triangulum, zero/lowenergy districts,transitions, smart city,Demonstrate,Disseminate, Replicate,Morgenstadt, citizenintegration, co-creation,integrated infrastructures,SIP


FRAUNHOFERGESELLSCHAFT ZURFOERDERUNG DERANGEWANDTENFORSCHUNG E.V.Germany

ERA4CS

EuropeanResearchArea forClimateServices

climate services;stakeholder involvement;co-development for userneeds; institutionalintegration; co-alignmentof national activities

Climate action,environment,resourceefficiency andraw materials 25.000.000

AGENCE NATIONALEDE LA RECHERCHEFrance

GN4-1

GN4-1Research andEducationNetworking -GÉANT

Networks, researchnetworking, multi-domainnetworking,communication networks,secure, trust, innovation,media, informationsociety, computersciences, e-infrastructure,communication commons

ResearchInfrastructures 25.000.000

GEANT LIMITED UnitedKingdom

Date post:	29-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times